The threat to the independence
of the judiciary by the executive today is greater than ever before. The division
in the bar and the judiciary itself has contributed consider-ably to the steady
erosion of its independence. This was generally agreed upon by the participants
at a discussion organised jointly by the Citizens for Democracy and the People's
Union for Civil Liberties in New Delhi on April 16, 1981 on the subject of 'Transfer
of Judges'.

Mr. Sorabji, former Solicitor
General said that it was his "considered opinion" that "never
has there been a greater threat to the judiciary than now and what was worse
is that the people are taking the daily assault on the dignity' of the judiciary
without a protest". He vehemently criticised the whole. business of using
transfers as a threat and described the holding back of confirmation of additional
judges as a "shocking outrage"

He said the greatest danger
was public apathy and added that it was necessary to remind oneself again and
again that Mrs. Gandhi had consistently and repeatedly attacked the independence
of the judiciary. "Today the most virulent form of Press censorship is
taking place in Assam and the danger is that during the Emergency we were aware
of this but today we are not," he said. The National Security Act was being
used against leaders of mass movements and men like Niyogi who were leaders
of poor workers, he said.

He criticised Ministers
for their "daily vilification" of judges and described as "shocking"
a circular by the Law Minister to various Chief Ministers asking them to get
the "consent" of additional judges that they are willing to be transferred.
He said that this amounts to a plain threat that judges must consent to be transferred
or face the prospect of not being confirmed.

Prof. Upendra Baxi of Delhi
University said that every major institution of India is today facing some sort
of crisis. He said there had been a steady decline in the legal profession and
at the same time, the people had begun to expect more and more justice. He strongly
criticised "the lobbying by members of the bar with Ministers for and against
judges" and "the acceptance or vice-chancellor-
ships and ambassadorships by superannuated judges". The Indian bar has
never protested against long delays in the appointment of Chief Justices that
have resulted in piling up of court cases, and sitting judges accept commissions
of inquiry which, they know, will result in monstorous heaps of paper and add
to the backlog of work, he said.

Prof. Baxi agreed that the
executive's assaults on the judiciary should be resisted by the bar and by the
public at large.

Mr. Arun Shourie, General
Secretary of PUCL, referred to Mrs. Gandhi's propaganda that the courts were
obstructing social justice. "I would like to ask which judgement has come
in the way of the government fulfilling the directive principles of State Policy?"
he said.

He said that the judicial
system as a whole is losing its legitimacy and the people no longer look upon
courts as places where they can get justice. He pointed out that during both
the Janata and Mrs. Gandhi's regimes important cases were withdrawn and there
was no protest against this even by the judges themselves. For example, it is
reported that in an MP's case, 560 cases against him were withdrawn. Mr Shourie
also referred to the corrupt practice of judges who have their close relatives
as practising lawyers in their own courts who "fix cases". He added
that in such cases the judges themselves should come forward to seek transfers.

Mr. V.M. Tarkunde, President
of the PUCL, said that although theoretically the legislature is supposed to
control the executive, in a modern State it is the executive which controls
the legislature. "We need a strong and indepen-dent judiciary as there
is no other authority which can check abuse of power.

Mr Tarkunde demanded that
in the matter of appoint-ments, transfers and promotions, the executive should
have no hand. Appointments, he said, should be in the hands of a committee of
judges.
Protest resignations by independent judges, he felt, were not to be welcomed
and, in fact, "we are trying to persuade the judges not to resign in a
huff as a result of the humiliation heaped on them by the government".

He blamed the colonial pattern
and the lack of consti-tutional safeguards in India in. the context of appointment
of judges to the higher courts.